"To ask that God’s love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God; because He is what He is,
His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character
And because He already loves us He must labor to make us lovable."
We must allow ourselves to be changed if we would become what He has in mind. To stubbornly continue on at our pace and direction is to ignore the reality of his love and plans for our eternal welfare...
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Our Amazing Heavenly Father
God’s nature is dualistic. He loves ALL of His children equally, at the same time. Across the universe and in all corners, He loves us all.
At the same time, surpassing our complete understanding, He loves us individually as well. Knows our individual daily battles and petty worries perfectly. Knows the nuanced ways we try to combat life. Loves our quirks and our weaknesses. Knows them all.
His True Nature grasps all of us AND me individually. Tender mercies, therefore can bless and strengthen and grow me—and those around me. And do it at the same time.
Amazing, huh?
At the same time, surpassing our complete understanding, He loves us individually as well. Knows our individual daily battles and petty worries perfectly. Knows the nuanced ways we try to combat life. Loves our quirks and our weaknesses. Knows them all.
His True Nature grasps all of us AND me individually. Tender mercies, therefore can bless and strengthen and grow me—and those around me. And do it at the same time.
Amazing, huh?
Ideas to ponder...
During the 1952 Christmas season, C. S. Lewis invited Joy Davidman Gresham—an American with whom he had corresponded for over two years—to spend the holidays at his home, The Kilns. Joy asked Lewis to autograph her copy of his book, The Great Divorce. He wrote, "There are three images in my mind which I must continually forsake and replace by better ones: the false image of God, the false image of my neighbours, and the false image of myself. C. S. Lewis 30 December 1952 (from an unwritten chapter on Iconoclasm)."
Though the planned chapter was never written, this simple inscription captures an idea central to Lewis's life and work: the idea that reality is iconoclastic—it breaks images or idols. An image of God (or of another person, or oneself) formed after reading a book, hearing a lecture or sermon, or having a conversation with a friend may temporarily give greater clarity of thought. But if it is held too tightly, it becomes an idol that must be broken in order to allow a better image to take its place. One might say that Lewis's entire relationship with the woman who eventually became his wife was encapsulated in the words he wrote on that December day.
Though the planned chapter was never written, this simple inscription captures an idea central to Lewis's life and work: the idea that reality is iconoclastic—it breaks images or idols. An image of God (or of another person, or oneself) formed after reading a book, hearing a lecture or sermon, or having a conversation with a friend may temporarily give greater clarity of thought. But if it is held too tightly, it becomes an idol that must be broken in order to allow a better image to take its place. One might say that Lewis's entire relationship with the woman who eventually became his wife was encapsulated in the words he wrote on that December day.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
His Image
The covenant to "make man in our own image" is not just a promise to create our physical body. Our road to exaltation requires divine intervention to remake us from our fallen selves into His image. The result is engraven on our countenance. It is His committment to our eternal progression.
On the other hand, if we are left unchanged, we try to reconcile our behaviors with our view of God. In order to pacify our guilt, we immediately set about creating god into our own image--we imagine Him in a way that condones our destructive behavior. He wouldn't judge me on this! God would send me to hell for this!
In the end, it still remains for us to accept His creation of us, daily, or begin the work of reinventing Him. There is no middle ground.
On the other hand, if we are left unchanged, we try to reconcile our behaviors with our view of God. In order to pacify our guilt, we immediately set about creating god into our own image--we imagine Him in a way that condones our destructive behavior. He wouldn't judge me on this! God would send me to hell for this!
In the end, it still remains for us to accept His creation of us, daily, or begin the work of reinventing Him. There is no middle ground.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Perfectionism
The disease of perfectionism is an especially nasty disorder. There's no medication that I know of, but it can be terminal if not careful. To those struggling with its insidious death grip, I offer Elder Maxwell's wise suggestions...
May I speak, not to the slackers in the Kingdom, but to those who carry their own load and more; not to those lulled into false security,
but to those buffeted by false insecurity, who, though laboring devotedly in the Kingdom, have recurring feelings of falling forever short. …
There is a difference … between being ‘anxiously engaged’ and being over-anxious and thus underengaged. …
We can distinguish more clearly between divine discontent and the devil’s dissonance, between dissatisfaction with self and disdain for self.
We need the first and must shun the second, remembering that when conscience calls to us from the next ridge, it is not solely to scold but also to beckon.”
May I speak, not to the slackers in the Kingdom, but to those who carry their own load and more; not to those lulled into false security,
but to those buffeted by false insecurity, who, though laboring devotedly in the Kingdom, have recurring feelings of falling forever short. …
There is a difference … between being ‘anxiously engaged’ and being over-anxious and thus underengaged. …
We can distinguish more clearly between divine discontent and the devil’s dissonance, between dissatisfaction with self and disdain for self.
We need the first and must shun the second, remembering that when conscience calls to us from the next ridge, it is not solely to scold but also to beckon.”
Monday, August 9, 2010
CS Lewis Quote
I have a new favorite CS Lewis quote-and its fairly deep. He said,
Every idea of Him we form, He must in mercy shatter.
What he is saying, I take it, is that we see God through our eyes. In a sense, he is an extension of our limited view of life. This view was formed by our experiences and by our relationships. Therefore, he is a God of our own making.
If our experience with people who are intended to be our caretakers has been a positive one, we tend to see a Father (in Heaven) in the same light. He becomes what we know and expect. If, on the other hand, we've been damaged or left by these father figures, we expect similar treatment from a God in heaven. Regardless of what we may profess or think we believe, a more remote part of us expects to be damaged or abandoned in the end.
In the same way, our dealings with our Creator is first and foremost a relationship. Relationships are filled elements such as love and trust and commitments and loyalty. If our relationships have been fairly positive, it becomes easier to draw closer to a relationship with deity. If we still carry pain from past interactions, we might be more reluctant to trust God, regardless of what we read.
It is for all these reasons that He must, MUST, in total mercy, shatter our ideas of who He is and why He does what He does. Our myopic human viewpoint makes it a certainty that we will be wrong; that we've somehow misunderstood Him and His love for us. For that reason, He will act contrary to what we expect, for He is not like anyone we've dealt with before. He is motivated by different things and driven by reasons we scarcely understand.
The bottom line is that He is who He is, not who we have imagined him to be. Only when we become completely honest with ourself, will we see the God we've created. This image He will shatter as learn more of Him. And this is the part where we can finally prepare to see Him as He really is.
Every idea of Him we form, He must in mercy shatter.
What he is saying, I take it, is that we see God through our eyes. In a sense, he is an extension of our limited view of life. This view was formed by our experiences and by our relationships. Therefore, he is a God of our own making.
If our experience with people who are intended to be our caretakers has been a positive one, we tend to see a Father (in Heaven) in the same light. He becomes what we know and expect. If, on the other hand, we've been damaged or left by these father figures, we expect similar treatment from a God in heaven. Regardless of what we may profess or think we believe, a more remote part of us expects to be damaged or abandoned in the end.
In the same way, our dealings with our Creator is first and foremost a relationship. Relationships are filled elements such as love and trust and commitments and loyalty. If our relationships have been fairly positive, it becomes easier to draw closer to a relationship with deity. If we still carry pain from past interactions, we might be more reluctant to trust God, regardless of what we read.
It is for all these reasons that He must, MUST, in total mercy, shatter our ideas of who He is and why He does what He does. Our myopic human viewpoint makes it a certainty that we will be wrong; that we've somehow misunderstood Him and His love for us. For that reason, He will act contrary to what we expect, for He is not like anyone we've dealt with before. He is motivated by different things and driven by reasons we scarcely understand.
The bottom line is that He is who He is, not who we have imagined him to be. Only when we become completely honest with ourself, will we see the God we've created. This image He will shatter as learn more of Him. And this is the part where we can finally prepare to see Him as He really is.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Teach me all that I must know?
When 'I Am A Child of God' was first composed, it read, "teach me all that I must know". Later, it was changed to 'teach me all that I must do'.
However, at the Bar of God, are we saved based on what we do or on what we know?
The answer might surprise you...
However, at the Bar of God, are we saved based on what we do or on what we know?
The answer might surprise you...
Monday, July 19, 2010
Just what, exactly, is the Azazel Goat?
The Atonement and the Azazel Goat
Early in our gospel education each of us is responsible “for our own sins”, and not for the sins of others. We also learn, however, that there are certain circumstances under which the sin of one is transferred to another.
For instance, our stewardship as parents in Zion requires that we raise our children in “light and truth.” When we fail to do so, their wrongs, committed prior to age eight, “falls upon” our heads. The sins of the children fall upon the heads of the parents.
The prophet Jacob understood firmly, that failure to teach his people might result in their sins being transferred to him.
And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence…[that] their blood might on come upon our garments…and we would not be found spotless at the last day. (Jacob 1:19)
Jacob is saying that should he fail to teach his people he would be guilty of double sin: not only would he be guilty of shirking his appointed duty but the actual sins of the people would be moved from them to him. His garments would then be spotted with their sins.
Of course, the most transcendent case of sin transfer is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. “He was wounded” says Isaiah, “for our transgressions, he was bruised for our inequities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” (Isaiah 53:5) Because of the power of the “infinite Atonement” the sins of countless children of God were transferred to the Savior of the world. Justice was then satisfied and mercy extended by He who bore those sins.
The Law of Moses taught the people a powerful object lesson in sin transfer. As we know, the Law was given so that “they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the Law of Moses was a type of his coming…” (Alma 25:15) In the Law, all things pointed to the coming of the Messiah and the Atonement. In preparing the people for that sacrifice, the Lord prescribed blood sacrifices on specific days to help prepare their minds and hearts.
On the Day of Atonement, the transfer of sins become central to the observance. The Law directs that two goats or kids be brought to the temple.
And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. (Lev 16: 7,8)
The “Lord’s” goat was to be the “sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail…and he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins.” (Lev. 16:15)
This symbolism is unmistakable. The blood of the goat chosen “for the Lord” is spilt and sprinkled upon the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, signifying the mercy that comes from He who was slain. Surely this goat is deeply symbolic of the Savior.
The other goat—the one not chosen—is designated as the scapegoat, or “Azazel” goat. He is “presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him.” (Lev. 16: 10) Now bearing the sins of Israel, the priest is “to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” Afterwards, the priest who sends the scapegoat needs to completely wash to become clean once again.
Who is this second goat to supposed to symbolize? Commentators explain that Azazel is “the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah . . . , but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons." This certainly matches the world’s caricature of Satan as a goat or goat-like figure.
The Azezel goat is the one not chosen, the one banished from the temple and “cast down” to the wilderness. It is this goat, however, upon which the collective sins of Israel are placed.
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live [scapegoat], and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel…and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited; (Lev 16:21,22)
Christians everywhere understand the transfer of sin that occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. In the Law of Moses, sins transferred to a scapegoat seems to suggest that, at some point, Lucifer may also have sins of others placed on his head, though this has never been revealed.
There are at least two possibilities, and reasons, that this transfer may occur. As we discussed earlier, a transfer of sins can occur if we fail to do our duty. If we do not warn the people to keep the commandments, we can, as Jacob suggested, find ourselves with their blood (sins) on our garments. Also, as parents, sins committed by our children are put upon our head, should we fail to bring them up in truth and light. Apparently, justice requires that sins committed by the innocent be placed on the heads of those who did not teach them properly.
During the War in Heaven, Lucifer raged against the Plan of Salvation and against the Savior. He fought that war by lie and deceit, “ [he] deceiveth the whole world”. He also did it by slander. “Now is come salvation,” says John, speaking of the premortal conflict, “for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” (Rev. 12:10)
Lucifer, a son of the morning, achieved great intelligence and light through his early obedience. At some point, pride soured his heart and he used his vast knowledge and skill to deceive his fellow spirit brothers and sisters. The sins committed due to his malfeasance are incalculable.
Mercy demands accountability for those sins; certainly the Savior bore them in the garden. Lucifer, by his acts, become Perdition, placing himself outside the effects of the Atonement. He, it was, who caused the heavens to weep. He it was who failed to teach and support the eternal Plan of Happiness. And he it was that caused sin uncounted.
Because of those actions, were the sins of the innocent placed on his head, just like Israel’s scapegoat, just as he was cast down? In the aftermath of the Infinite Atonement, were additional sins, committed by the deceived, placed again on his head; his to bear throughout the long dark night of eternity?
The Plan of Salvation required the fall of man. It provides for a Savior to redeem all mankind from the effects of the fall. Does the Atonement also need a Perdition, a scapegoat, to carry those sins into outward darkness? The enormity of that doom is beyond the mind of mortal man.
Early in our gospel education each of us is responsible “for our own sins”, and not for the sins of others. We also learn, however, that there are certain circumstances under which the sin of one is transferred to another.
For instance, our stewardship as parents in Zion requires that we raise our children in “light and truth.” When we fail to do so, their wrongs, committed prior to age eight, “falls upon” our heads. The sins of the children fall upon the heads of the parents.
The prophet Jacob understood firmly, that failure to teach his people might result in their sins being transferred to him.
And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence…[that] their blood might on come upon our garments…and we would not be found spotless at the last day. (Jacob 1:19)
Jacob is saying that should he fail to teach his people he would be guilty of double sin: not only would he be guilty of shirking his appointed duty but the actual sins of the people would be moved from them to him. His garments would then be spotted with their sins.
Of course, the most transcendent case of sin transfer is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. “He was wounded” says Isaiah, “for our transgressions, he was bruised for our inequities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” (Isaiah 53:5) Because of the power of the “infinite Atonement” the sins of countless children of God were transferred to the Savior of the world. Justice was then satisfied and mercy extended by He who bore those sins.
The Law of Moses taught the people a powerful object lesson in sin transfer. As we know, the Law was given so that “they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the Law of Moses was a type of his coming…” (Alma 25:15) In the Law, all things pointed to the coming of the Messiah and the Atonement. In preparing the people for that sacrifice, the Lord prescribed blood sacrifices on specific days to help prepare their minds and hearts.
On the Day of Atonement, the transfer of sins become central to the observance. The Law directs that two goats or kids be brought to the temple.
And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. (Lev 16: 7,8)
The “Lord’s” goat was to be the “sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail…and he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins.” (Lev. 16:15)
This symbolism is unmistakable. The blood of the goat chosen “for the Lord” is spilt and sprinkled upon the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, signifying the mercy that comes from He who was slain. Surely this goat is deeply symbolic of the Savior.
The other goat—the one not chosen—is designated as the scapegoat, or “Azazel” goat. He is “presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him.” (Lev. 16: 10) Now bearing the sins of Israel, the priest is “to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” Afterwards, the priest who sends the scapegoat needs to completely wash to become clean once again.
Who is this second goat to supposed to symbolize? Commentators explain that Azazel is “the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah . . . , but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons." This certainly matches the world’s caricature of Satan as a goat or goat-like figure.
The Azezel goat is the one not chosen, the one banished from the temple and “cast down” to the wilderness. It is this goat, however, upon which the collective sins of Israel are placed.
And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live [scapegoat], and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel…and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited; (Lev 16:21,22)
Christians everywhere understand the transfer of sin that occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. In the Law of Moses, sins transferred to a scapegoat seems to suggest that, at some point, Lucifer may also have sins of others placed on his head, though this has never been revealed.
There are at least two possibilities, and reasons, that this transfer may occur. As we discussed earlier, a transfer of sins can occur if we fail to do our duty. If we do not warn the people to keep the commandments, we can, as Jacob suggested, find ourselves with their blood (sins) on our garments. Also, as parents, sins committed by our children are put upon our head, should we fail to bring them up in truth and light. Apparently, justice requires that sins committed by the innocent be placed on the heads of those who did not teach them properly.
During the War in Heaven, Lucifer raged against the Plan of Salvation and against the Savior. He fought that war by lie and deceit, “ [he] deceiveth the whole world”. He also did it by slander. “Now is come salvation,” says John, speaking of the premortal conflict, “for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” (Rev. 12:10)
Lucifer, a son of the morning, achieved great intelligence and light through his early obedience. At some point, pride soured his heart and he used his vast knowledge and skill to deceive his fellow spirit brothers and sisters. The sins committed due to his malfeasance are incalculable.
Mercy demands accountability for those sins; certainly the Savior bore them in the garden. Lucifer, by his acts, become Perdition, placing himself outside the effects of the Atonement. He, it was, who caused the heavens to weep. He it was who failed to teach and support the eternal Plan of Happiness. And he it was that caused sin uncounted.
Because of those actions, were the sins of the innocent placed on his head, just like Israel’s scapegoat, just as he was cast down? In the aftermath of the Infinite Atonement, were additional sins, committed by the deceived, placed again on his head; his to bear throughout the long dark night of eternity?
The Plan of Salvation required the fall of man. It provides for a Savior to redeem all mankind from the effects of the fall. Does the Atonement also need a Perdition, a scapegoat, to carry those sins into outward darkness? The enormity of that doom is beyond the mind of mortal man.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
LDS Musing
Why another blog? Because we all read something in the Book of Mormon, of instance, and want to share it or get some feedback from someone else. That's the idea. As this develops, perhaps we can share some ideas from classes or studying that bears repeating and posting--and here we are!
Do some studying and bring it on in here!
Do some studying and bring it on in here!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)